Maurice Tutor
$15/per page/Negotiable
Is Chasing Rats from the Warehouse in My Job Description?
|
Facts After Mr. Park received the letter, he met with the Acme Markets, Inc., was a national food retail chain vice president for legal affairs for Acme and was as- headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At the sured that he was “investigating the situation immedi- time of the government action, John R. Park (respon- ately and would be taking corrective action.” dent) was president of Acme, which employed 36,000 When the FDA inspected the Baltimore warehouse people and operated 16 warehouses. in March 1972, there was some improvement in the fa- In 1970, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cility, but there was still rodent infestation. Acme and forwarded a letter to Mr. Park describing, in detail, Mr. Park were both charged with violations of the problems with rodent infestation in Acme’s Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Acme pleaded Philadelphia warehouse facility. In December 1971, the guilty. Mr. Park was convicted and fined $500. FDA found the same types of conditions in Acme’s The court of appeals reversed Mr. Park’s conviction, Baltimore warehouse facility. In January 1972, the FDA’s and the government appealed. chief of compliance for its Baltimore office wrote to Mr. Park about the inspection. The letter included the fol- Judicial Opinion lowing language: BURGER, Chief Justice We note with much concern that the old and new ware- The duty imposed by Congress on responsible corpo- house areas used for food storage were actively and exten- rate agents is, we emphasize, one that requires the high- sively inhabited by live rodents. Of even more concern was est standard of foresight and vigilance, but the Act, in its the observation that such reprehensible conditions obviously criminal aspect, does not require that which is objec- existed for a prolonged period of time without any detection, tively impossible. The theory upon which responsible or were completely ignored. corporate agents are held criminally accountable for We trust this letter will serve to direct your attention to “causing” violations of the Act permits a claim that a de- the seriousness of the problem and formally advise you of the fendant was “powerless” to prevent or correct the viola- urgent need to initiate whatever measures are necessary to tion to “be raised defensively at a trial on the merits.” If prevent recurrence and ensure compliance with the law. such a claim is made, the defendant has the burden of CONTINUED |
coming forward with evidence, but this does not alter the Government’s ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt, including his power, in light of the duty imposed by the Act, to pre- vent or correct the prohibited condition.
Park testified in his defense that he had employed a system in which he relied upon his subordinates, and that he was ultimately responsible for this system. He testified further that he had found these subordinates to be “dependable” and had “great confidence” in them.
[The rebuttal] evidence [to Park’s reliance on his subordinates] was not offered to show that respondent had a propensity to commit criminal acts, that the crime charged had been committed; its purpose was to demonstrate that respondent was on notice that he could not rely on his system of delegation to subordi- nates to prevent or correct unsanitary conditions at Acme’s warehouses, and that he must have been aware
of the deficiencies of this system before the Baltimore violations were discovered. The evidence was therefore relevant since it served to rebut Park’s defense that he had justifiably relied upon subordinates to handle sani- tation matters.
Reversed.
Case Questions
1. What problems did the FDA find in the Acme ware- houses and over what period of time did the FDA find the problems?
2. What is the significance of the warnings Mr. Park was given?
3. Is it enough to avoid criminal liability to tell an em- ployee to take care of the problem? What does this case tell you an officer must do to avoid criminal liability?